Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention as the specification is silent and without even a most basic components of the registration system.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In the claims it is unclear is the system is a method or an apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because given on interpretation the claims read in a system (method) and with that interpretation the following rejection is set forth
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims directed to an Apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, In re Danly 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 582, 531 (CCPA 1959). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1657 (bd Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). However, the claim does not positively recite any elements that necessarily constitute a system or apparatus, such as computer hardware. It is not clear what structure is included or excluded by the claim language. The structural limitations of these claims are interpreted as computer code or software per-se and are not statutory.
Given a separate interpretation a system can read on a apparatus however nevertheless the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of leasing a vacation home. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception based on the answers to the following;
PNG
media_image1.png
542
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1.
The claims are directed to an apparatus.
Step 2.
The claims are directed to abstract idea of leasing a vacation home.
The representative (read in the light most favorable to the applicant and notwithstanding the intended use language) comprises the following steps:
(Adding a home) to a a vacation club having a long-term lease on a property where the lessor retains rights of use to create reserved owner days (ROD) on the reservation system where RODs
Crediting back to the vacation club at a predetermined rate to reduce the rent due from the vacation club to the owner,
automatically forcing the creation an owner day (FOD) if no club members have reserved the property 24 hours in advance of that day, the FOD being credited back to the vacation club as a reduction in the rent owed on the lease.
Each step are categorized as a method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-2.
The components in addition to the abstract idea are (read in the light most favorable) to the applicant are a reservation system.
Under Prong 2, we “evaluate integration into a practical application by: (a) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (emphasis added). Thus, Prong 2 focuses on the additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
In claim 1, the only limitation beyond the abstract idea is that several of the steps are performed by the reservation system.”
The Supreme Court is unambiguous that “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patenteligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–23. Thus, merely performing the abstract idea on a “computing device” does not integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application.
Step 2B
Under USPTO Step 2B, we consider “whether an additional element or combination of elements . . . [a]dds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
A claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”). Thus, allegations that something is “unconventional or non-routine” are only material if they address items
outside the abstract idea. Here, the only additional element beyond the abstract idea is a generic “reservation s,” which the case law confirms is insufficient for eligibility under § 101. E.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–23.
As the dependent claims lack additional components, claims 1-3 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho US Patent Pub 20040093227 in view of RedWeek press release.
As to claim 1 a reservation system (apparatus) , the reference teaches
a vacation club having a long-term lease on a property See page 1, paragraphs [0001][0002]
The invention is designed to maximize equipment/asset utilization…. The invention provides a venue for equipment/s owner/lessor to rent/lease out their equipment/s to prospective lessee (vacation club). Equipment/s or Asset/s ranging from but not limited to ……camper home, timeshare, club memberships.
The invention allows idle equipment to be put to work thru a third party that will assure smooth transaction. The invention seeks to provide the following services to enable lease/rental agreements between Owner/Lessor and Lessee/Renter :
The reference fails to expressly teach
where the lessor retains rights of use to create reserved owner days (ROD) on the reservation system where RODs are credited back to the vacation club at a predetermined rate to reduce the rent due from the vacation club to the owner, to reduce the rent due from the vacation club to the owner, automatically forcing the creation an owner day (FOD) if no club members have reserved the property 24 hours in advance of that day, the FOD being credited back to the vacation club as a reduction in the rent owed on the lease.
Redweek teaches that RedWeek has created a fluid secondary market for timeshare owners," said Paul Gamberg,a RedWeek member since 2005. "They make it far easier for owners to rent or sell excess weeks. Timeshare resort vacations have the advantage of reliable and affordable home-cooked or BBQ local meals over competing hotel stays. Additionally, they have the huge advantage of predictability and consistency over even Airbnb."
It would have been obvious to combine the references and for one skilled in the art to structure the lease according the ROD and FOD clauses, as the ROD clause net is a lease on consignment that is it is equivalent to listing and leasing a vacation home on a “for use” basis vs the leasing for a period of N days and crediting back for a period of N-M days where M</=to N and to automate the same as motivated by the modern reservation systems as motivated by the common need to lease unused vacation homes.
As to claim 2:The claim of claim 1 further comprising ROD credits that are credited back are
credited back at a different rate than the FOD credits. It would have been obvious to for ROD and FOD amounts to be different as motivated by normal profit incentives and market supply and demand.
As to claim 3: The claim of claim 1 further comprising different credit rates based on factors
selected from: day of week, seasonal demand, and holidays. . It would have been obvious to for ROD and FOD amounts to be different as motivated by normal profit incentives and market supply and demand.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0580. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
RICHARD C. WEISBERGER
Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693